I sent this letter today to USA Today:
Even
more predictable than the post-Thanksgiving appearance of shopping-mall
Santas is the inability of pundits at this time of year to say or to
write "commercialism" without prefixing to it the word "crass" – as we
encounter in your pages today in Tom Krattenmaker’s "The real meaning
of Christmas."
I challenge this notion. Commerce is peaceful.
It involves sellers working hard and taking risks to bring to market
goods and services that consumers want to buy. No one forces anyone to
do anything; all is voluntary.
What truly is crass is politics -
that sorry spectacle of power-seeking ego-maniacs who, when not
pronouncing platitudes, are promising to help group A by picking the
pockets of group B. While commerce is honest, politics is
duplicitous. While commerce is peaceful, politics inevitably pits
citizen against citizen. Far more enlightened and ethical behavior
is on display during any one day in a shopping mall than the most
intrepid observer will find in a century on Pennsylvania Avenue.
Sincerely,
Donald J. Boudreaux
Podcast RSS Feed
Full EconTalk Text
{ 29 comments }
Nicely put. It recalls a famous passage from Voltaire's Philosophical Letters, in which he observes, “Go into the Exchange in London, that place more venerable than many a court, and you will see representatives of all the nations assembled there for the profit of mankind. There the Jew, the Mahometan, and the Christian deal with one another as if they were of the same religion, and reserve the name of infidel for those who go bankrupt.”
Politicians must have nightmares thinking of the day when all transactions are voluntary. Oh, the horror!
Right on!
It has become intolerably boring when so-called 'intellectuals' continue to parrot the same Marxist lines against free choice and consumption.
Aw come on. How many people are willing to admit to being anarcho-Capitalists? Only when all goods and services are provided by private enterprises will A get stuff from A's pocket and B get stuff from B's pocket but not not each others'.
Oh but its all so selfish and materialistic! And politicians are so noble and selfless!
;/
Oh, and has anyone here read Leonard Peikoff's "Christmas Should be More Commercial"?
One could make the case (somewhat tongue in cheek) that the Bible encourages us to give gifts during Christmas by reference to the gifts given the baby Jesus by the Magi. Let everyone celebrate Christmas or Hanukkah or Kwanzaa or Ramadan or the Winter Solstice or whatever in their own way.
By the way, I assume that I'm not the only one who thinks that Ebenezer Scrooge was more of a benefactor of humanity before he underwent a meltdown at the end of Dickens' "A Christmas Carol". I suspect that a sequel would have disclosed the sad fates of Scrooge and Cratchit after Scrooge's business went bankrupt with all his spending on charity and workers benefits and pay raises.
Beautiful!
Don Boudreaux, moral entrepreneur!
Don: Has anyone ever taken a look at the economics of the movie "It's a Wonderful Life"? It seems to me that George Bailey's practice of lending to poor credit risks like widows and taxi drivers may have been a forerunner of the sub-prime loan crisis.
There is something akin to schizophrenia with those intellectuals. Consumerism is a great evil doing… evil things… to people, and yet they constantly try and convince us that the middle class' income and purchasing power has greatly diminished over the last few years at the expense of the richest whatever percent and that this a very bad and unfair situation.
If consumption is one of the more unholy aspects of the American character shouldn't they embrace this disputed shift in the income structure as a blessing?
Just because the exchanges are voluntary doesn't mean they are not crass. After all, I may voluntarily purchase a t-shirt with Che Guevara posed heroically on the front, but it is still crass to buy it.
Of course, it's pretty clear that Krattenmaker was making a broader point about commerce generally, rather than crassness as such.
What is your success rate? I enjoy reading your submissions, but it would be interesting to know how many get printed.
From an economic transaction and value point of view, Don is spot on – there is no "crassness" when goods are freely traded. However, I think it's the moral side of the transaction that some feel is taking the meaning of christmas/holiday season away and to which "crassness", I think, applies. The 'giving' is meant to give to the poor and loved ones as a token of love & affection – that has meaning. In some ways giving gifts for the sake of giving or even because of peer pressure, I suspect, isn't in the original spirit of the concept.
In summary, those who bemoan "crassness" are in no ways demeaning free trade.
How many people are willing to admit to being anarcho-Capitalists?
(Raises hand.)
It seems to me that George Bailey's practice of lending to poor credit risks like widows and taxi drivers may have been a forerunner of the sub-prime loan crisis.
Well done, John. Somebody needed to finally expose that goon for the predatory lender that he was! Why, how dare he take advantage of dumb poor people by lending them money they will never repay?!
I always equate Mr. Potter with Wall Street's Gordon Gekko: conservative capitalists as they exist only in the minds of Hollywood liberals.
Gil Gil Gil Gil Gil Gil, WTF do you mean by anarcho-capitalist? Do you have any kind of plain language defintion that would tell us country folk what it is that you are trying to say?
Ism's and anarcho's and neo's, what the f…
is wrong with the English language?
Yes, I am a dumb country boy, talk to me slowly in the English language. Please.
Who knows, I might raise my hand as well.
Simple. An anarcho-Capitalist believes the government has no role, period, and believes ALL goods and services can be efficiently produced by private enterprises. I fail to see much in the defense of basic governance yet plenty of guvmint bashing hence I can't but think the more minarcho-types examine guvmint the more they realize it has no legitimate role in society.
Gil: You really think the retaliatory use of force can be left up to the market? Markets are capable of providing different products for different people with different tastes. What about people with different ideas about what constitutes the initiation of force? There are people who believe in intellectual property rights, and those who do not. Some who believe employment is a voluntary exchange, and others who think it is exploitation. What happens when different free market protection services have different standards and rules for what constitutes force? The answer is war, untill we are back to the situation where we end up with a monopoly government.
SaulOhio –
What happens when different free market protection services have different standards and rules for what constitutes force?
AC is a logical extension of a democracy. I can't imagine how an AC society could exist without having been civilized by a working democracy.
A difference in opinion regarding the use of force occurs when you cross the line from LA to TX, from NY to NJ — and you have to adapt if this is important to you. Free market services would voluntarily subscribe to private standards, just as they do today, in order to facilitate commerce.
"By the way, I assume that I'm not the only one who thinks that Ebenezer Scrooge was more of a benefactor of humanity before he underwent a meltdown at the end of Dickens' "A Christmas Carol". I suspect that a sequel would have disclosed the sad fates of Scrooge and Cratchit after Scrooge's business went bankrupt with all his spending on charity and workers benefits and pay raises."
Hmm, not necessarily. Assuming Scrooge was the sole owner of a privately-held company, and he decided that (1) charity was a good use of his profits (other than what was plowed into the business) and (2) in order to improve worker morale and retention he would change his attitude and provide better working conditions and salaries, what is wrong with that? At my firm, we were having a particularly good year so we paid an extra bonus on top of the holiday bonus. It came out of the partners' share and, since we're not stewards of the business for shareholders, who cares?
Capitalism and profit-seeking behavior is not inconsistent with being a good (and sometimes generous) boss. And I believe the "crass commercialism" tag is tied to Christmas, a holiday celebrating one whose life was the antithesis of materialism, not an attack on commerce generally.
I agree with vidyohs sense that the discussion is inevitably brought down a couple of notches when one introduces straw men and immaterial distinctions.
I agree with vidyohs sense that the discussion is inevitably brought down a couple of notches when one introduces straw men and immaterial distinctions.
Sir jdub,
I could not agree with you more in what you said below. I believe it and I practice it. "Them that gives is them that gets"……(damn, you know I think there is a song in that somehow!)
I think though that the whole underlying foundation of Cafe Hayek, and I know my own personal philosophy, is that any giving, any charity, any action taken by an owner (and/or manager) to genorosity to employees should come from the voluntary action of the employer or manager….not as a government dictate.
My last concern with your company giving extra bonuses to employees is this: were the bonuses tied in measure to performance or were they equal regardless of the performance?
A true capitalist would set a standard and then reward employees in relation to how well and consistently they met the standards. Some employees who cared not to meet the standards would be disgruntled and bitch. Fire 'em, and try again with new employees. It is Darwinist capitalism at its finest, what the hell would you have to lose?
(((((((Hey Gil….did you like that…..Darwinist capitalism…..wow!)))))
"Capitalism and profit-seeking behavior is not inconsistent with being a good (and sometimes generous) boss. And I believe the "crass commercialism" tag is tied to Christmas, a holiday celebrating one whose life was the antithesis of materialism, not an attack on commerce generally.
Posted by: jdub | Dec 19, 2007 3:36:52 PM"
jdub & vidyohs –
Your comments assume the "Scrooge" in our story is perceived as a "Scrooge" by those in his hire. Or, is he only a "Scrooge" to those not in his hire? Or, is he only a "Scrooge" to a small subset of those in his hire? Or, is he only a "Scrooge" to a those who want to profit by those in his hire?
Successful businessmen understand how to share profits — and how to compensate employees who would be difficult to replace. They simply don't like being extorted by politicians and labor unions to pay outrageous wages to people who would be extremely easy to replace if they weren't represented by a bunch of thugs.
The fact that most union workers could easily be replaced by training new workers at a lower wage is easily demonstrated by the fact that the union does everything in its power to prevent such an experiment.
Sheetwise,
Not so sir, I assume nothing about Scrooge in the context he is being discussed here.
My reply to jdub was purely promoting merit based rewards as being wisest in the long run for any company, parent, coach, in other words any leader(ship).
Tks very much.
vidyohs –
My apologies.
And a Merry Christmas to all!
Mathieu,
That is an excellent point. I have had discussions with leftists about standard of living and economic growth as well as the benefits of free trade and higher levels and productivity. During those discussion I tend to point out that people in free, innovative societies, that trade freely, can consume much more than people in societies that not meet those conditions. I also point out how much more Americans own when people argue that we were better off a few decades ago compared to today.
They tend to respond with the George Carlinian response they being able to consume more equates to "just being able to buy more crap."
yet when you talk about income in society, especially median income or CEO compensation, thay claim that the former is inadequete and the latter excessive. If being able to buy stuff is so bad, why should people worry about some having low wages and not being able to to buy much "crap" which they "don't need."
I guess when they whine about CEO compensation and middle class earnings, they really are looking out for CEO so they can be sp[ared the fate of buying hundreds of times as much "crap that they don't need" they mediate earners.
I suppose our left wing friends, when they want to tax us and make us poorer through protectionism are just sparing us the awful fate of buying stuff tehy deem to be "crap that we don;t need."
Thank you all you wise and helpful statists and a Merry generic holiday to you.
Anarcho- capitalism is a utopian dream every bit as idiotic as the communist one that came before it. Man will always create hierarchy and there will always be exploitation. "Capitalism" and "Socialism" don't exist. They are political constructions designed to confuse. Markets are indestructable and so is planning. They happen to varying degrees simultaneously.We are not born equal. The only way to be free from coercian is to put a gun to your head and pull the trigger!